pbj -- Frum is the very model of a modern major conservative commentator, as envisioned by smug East Cost leftists. He calls himself conservative and, occasionally, says things that are mildly conservative. So they can put his thoughts in a major publication and, so earnestly, call themselves unbiased.

But a guy like Frum is above all a member of the hive and will never stray far from the institutional reservation or the accepted leftist cultural mores about government, religion, or anything else.

Frum's analogy is apt. Goldwater was basically a libertarian who distrusted government and wanted it to shrink. He was ahead of his time, but he paved the way for Reagan. Similarly, Ryan may burn on the pyre of conservative/libertarian honesty, and the DNC seems to be convinced that that pyre is burning as briskly as it did for Goldwater in 1964.

Not sure how credible I find him. His comment section is about 95% lefties. Compare this with Ann's comment section that tends to be a bit right of center, and note that by her voting record, at least at the Presidential level, appears left of center. So, it sure looks like Frum is preaching to the choir there, regardless of how many people have called him conservative in the past.

The 2012 election is some year and a half away, and a lot of things are bound to change, one way or another. For one thing, there is going to be a Presidential nomination, and if they are not in Congress at the present time, which right now seems likely, they are going to have a fairly easy time separating themselves from Ryan.

Besides, we have debt limits and the budget to address. Ryan has the only real proposal in the ring - the Democrats have voted absent here, and may, or may not be held accountable as a result.

The other thing is, that I just don't see Palin sitting around and being sucked into the position that Goldwater found himself. As she said, "Game On".

The one thing that is becoming clear about this next election is that the Republicans are not going to depend on the liberal MSM to get their message out, or to do anything other than what they have become so known for - carrying water for the DNC and Obama. I saw the other day a lament that none of the major GOP candidates would do interviews with the MSM this time around. Good for them. And, I suspect that this will extend to the debates - no more 3 libs and a left of center moderate as moderators.

The one person who really gets this new media is Palin. And, not surprisingly, she is the one who has been best able to slide right around the MSM and get her message out, regardless of all the disinformation being flogged by the MSM, DNC, etc.

So, it should be quite interesting to see how that movie about her coming out does. The timing does seem a bit suspicious, going into the four front-running states for GOP delegates first (including, apparently here in NV). Right now, I expect that if she does run, and this is indicia that she is at least serious about it, that they will run the movie long enough to make some money, and then when she announces, the movie will be made to go viral. (My understanding is that otherwise, it might be considered an illegal campaign contribution).

Remember that pedophile who was a major Frum contributor? When people brought that to Frum's attention, he didn't care. What was that pedo's name, anyway?

Frum wants attention. He's pretty boring. We get it... you're pretending it is automatically wrong to discuss fixing Medicare, and we should just ignore the problem until Medicare collapses and granny loses all benefits. That's really, really stupid. Ryan's plan is pretty damn moderate.

Also, you can't 'pay' for tax cuts. It's not spending, and tax cuts often result in more government revenue if they improve the economy. Spending is when the government uses money, not when they stop taking some that was not theirs to begin with.

Frum's desire to change my money from mine to the governments, so that any money they don't tax is 'spending' is the most pathetic example of why he's a shill for the left.

For someone who is supposedly completely irrelevant and unimportant, David Frum seems to get a lot of attention, judging by the responses from people here. Plus, I suspect he will get his phone calls to top GOP figures returned a lot more quickly than most of the conservative keyboard commandos around here. But, yes, no one cares what Frum has to say...

So I searched around the "Frum Forum." This guy's mission is to "modernize" and "restore the conservative movement."

From the pieces he's got on there, he looks like a big-government neo-con. It looks like his sole goal is to have Republicans in power because they are more friendly to Israel.

Israel is not a big issue in the U.S. Certainly not anymore. We have a lot more shit to worry about than "peace" in Israel. How about we get our deficits under control and let Israel and the Palestinians figure it out themselves.

Feller -- For myself, I didn't say that no one cares what Frum has to say. I don't sense that trend in the thread. So your sleight of hand here is a little off-putting.

For yourself, that may be true. But for others, it's not. Please see comments at 8:07pm, 8:08pm, 8:14pm, 8:22pm and 8:24pm. If five comments about Frum's supposed irrelevancy isn't a trend, it certainly is a tendency at the very least. No slight of hand here.

I agree about Iraq. Although a lot of that is on Obama who seems to be thrilled with that sort of shit as well. Who the hell campaigns against the Iraq war, then continues it and adds a war in Libya. Obama is W.'s third term on steroids.

pbj -- There will always, always be people who say that such and such war did not have to be fought. It never fails. Ever.

What, really, are you bringing to the table with such fluffery, particularly at this point?

Also, just so you know, nation building is a foreign policy term of art. We didn't do it in Iraq. We didn't have to, as Iraq is largely built and has been since the time it was called Babylon. Afghanistan is where we are foolishly nation building, something Bush was initially strongly against. Please make a note of it.

I find it frustrating that Dems do stuff like that granny/cliff commercial, and Republicans scurry around and do damage control -- and then just wait for the next attack. I want someone, preferably the R candidate, to pull the same tricks. Switch from defense to offense. Say "Democrats have cooties" and make them scurry for a change. Make them defend their platform rather than allowing their platform to just be anti-Republicanism.

The one person who really gets this new media is Palin.

Palin certainly would be good at playing offense, especially since she's media savvy. I question if she'd be good enough at offense for independents to change their Tina Fey impression of her, though.

Off the top of my head, I think Ryan would have been better served to offer up a bifurcated proposal that provides a voucher for the purchase of a capped benefit policy that provides for routine care, and backstops that with a catastrophic insurance underwritten by the federal government.

I'm not expert and I don't know the cost mix, but one could expect shopping the voucher-paid policy for routine (watch: currently over utilized) services would help control costs, but the government backstop would provide assurance against catastrophe.

What would the deficits have looked like if W. hadn't pushed through the 01 and 03 tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

And why does anyone think Reagan was conservative when he (i) jacked up Social Security taxes (ii) ran Depresssion-era deficits and (iii) gave amnesty to the illegals.

Cute.

The hike in taxes was the first of several misdirected efforts to "save" Social Security - to keep it from going broke. The Amnesty was intended as a one-off, to fix the mess created by Teddy Kennedy and his friends in '65.

The deficits came because the Democrats double-crossed him on spending cuts.

But mccullough knows all this.

Calvin Coolidge was a conservative. Goldwater was conservative. Clinton was more conservative than Reagan and so is McCain.

Lie on Willie and McCain. Willie would have given this country everything Little Zero has, if he hadn't lost the '94 elections.

HillaryCare was his, subprime mortgages was his, and don't try to snow anybody on his "balanced" budgets.

"Also, just so you know, nation building is a foreign policy term of art."

Well, we're didn't find WMD. So, saying that was the justification would requiring retrospectively acknowledging that it was an error. As I understand it, the prominent, current justification is related to the benefit of changing the government in a foreign nation because the new gov isn't potentially going to obtain WMD and potentially attack us. Perhaps it's best described as 'Using at least a trillion dollars to change the gov of a foreign nation'

I don't care what it's called. IMO, it's an overpriced mistake. And, I have called it that since it started, unlike many who took a while to figure it out. BTW, I was, and remain, always a huge supporter of the first Gulf War (i.e. the first Bush presidency, since technically we all used to call the Iran-Iraq war the 'gulf war,' which would mean that HW's was the second, and W's was the third). So, I'm not at all opposed to wars w/ Iraq, I'm only opposed to dumb ones (as BHO would put it).

Anyway it seems like the actual costs are near a trillion. And, Stiglitz has put the final, all-inclusive bill at three trillion. IMHO, one to three trillion dollars is not fluff. Wouldn't it be a problem if BHO could sweep one to three trillion dollars of his expenditures under the rug by declaring that any discussion of this dough is fluff?

pbj -- I've said this a million times here. I'll say it again, I guess. You are confusing the propaganda for war with the national interest for war.

National interest is what is important. We could have invaded any number of countries in the Middle East after Sept 11: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. It didn't matter much. What we needed was a beach head so that we could exert military and political control in the region.

There was a tremendous added benefit of invading Iraq. It had Sunni leadership, and Bin Laden was Sunni. And there was still another advantage. Look at a map. Look at Afghanistan (where we absolutely had to invade, if only to quell public passion). Look at Iraq. What's in between?

In fact, no country in the world is more perfectly near or beside problematic countries in the world than Iraq.

Finally, as I have also said, we will be in Iraq in 50 years -- 100 years, long past the time when it is strategically necessary. Just like Italy and Germany.

Politics and new age medicine are the only places where lies not only have equal footing with the truth, but actually dominate due to less resistance from the public. The truth is the quiet nice guy nobody talks to.

"It had Sunni leadership, and Bin Laden was Sunni. And there was still another advantage. Look at a map. Look at Afghanistan (where we absolutely had to invade, if only to quell public passion). Look at Iraq. What's in between? "

So the reason you would want the roulette wheel of middle east invasion to land on Iraq is because we could change their gov from Sunni to Shia so that they'd be more in line w/ the Iranian gov.

I think it'd be better to have an Iranian antagonist in charge of Iraq. Why is it good to strengthen the ties between the Iranian and Iraqi governments?

pbj -- You assume that religion is the trump card in the political relationship between Iraq and Iran. This is foolish in the extreme. Iraq and Iran have hated each other Babylon hated Persia, if not longer.

Having said all that, Iran will be our ally soon enough, just like Cuba will -- once the crazy lunatic cabal leadership goes away, and some semblance of a reasonable, ideology-free government is restored. If you would talk with some Iranians and read some, instead of spouting shallow platitudes, you might know these things.

pbj -- You aren't stupid. I know this. It's why I like debating with you.

But I am deeply puzzled here. Why does it concern you that Iranian leaders are going to Iraq or Iraqi leaders are going to Iran? Do you think either group is going to somehow defeat the American military presence there? Diplomacy is good. Open, public discourse is always good. It would never have happened but for the invasion of Iraq.

Further, the whole point of the exercise, as I argued above, is to have Iran surrounded by the mighty American military.

I didn't take a partisan position on any side. Or even suggest one side was lying more. My point is that people are more interested in the lies and spreading them than they are in the dry nonpartisan truth. They would rather believe a big lie that aids their side than accept even a small truth against it.

The likes of FOX and MSNBC both swim in it. That's why one or the other is virtually unwatchable depending on your ideology, but an ideology can be wrong or correct and still use lies in it's battles. The question for us is: does your ideology fall apart without it's lies?

The likes of FOX and MSNBC both swim in it. That's why one or the other is virtually unwatchable depending on your ideology

This is so perfectly apt. For me, watching Fox News is like listening to some grate their fingers across a chalkboard. Watching MSNBC is like listening to some grate their fingers across a chalkboard while getting skull fucked by Idi Amin.

Although I suspect that I agree with much of the punditry on FOX politically, I also often see them as dishonest and contradictory, but, the MSNBC pundits seem insanely so to me, though I probably agree them on some of the personal social issues. The conservative position is more accepting, respectful and freedom loving by comparison. That's my take. They both lie, often, and I suspect it's often personal political bias blinding them into it.

pbj -- The aspect that you are either stupidly or conveniently forgetting is that we (and the Iraqis) have just as much of an opportunity to influence Iran as Iran has to influence Iraq. Influence is a two-way street.

Secondly, we don't have to invade Iran. This is the point I've been making to you. We can just have a cold war with Iran until it gets better leadership.

Concerning North Korea, we cannot invade North Korea because China is right next door and China would see such an invasion as a belligerent act. Further, North Korea is more of a problem for China simply for reasons of geography. China, by the way, is interested in keeping Korea split in two. China is a sane country with sane crony capitalist leaders. North Korea's leadership is crazy.

If China were not right there, I'd be all for invading North Korea if there was an opportunity. The people there are starving simply because the leaders are corrupt.

"The Iranian Military consists of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, and the Iranian Air Defense Force. The regular armed forces have an estimated 545,000 personnel: the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, 465,000 personnel; the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, 28,000 personnel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, 52,000 airmen. Iranian Air Defense Force is a branch split off from the IRIAF.

The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Revolutionary Guards, has an estimated 120,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).

The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Its membership is a matter of controversy. Iranian sources claim a membership of 12.6 million, including women, of which perhaps 3 million are combat capable. There are a claimed 2,500 battalions of which some are full-time personnel. Globalsecurity.org quotes a 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be.

Iran's military was called the Middle East's most powerful by General John Abizaid chief of United States Central Command (U.S. forces' commander in the region). However General Abizaid said he did not include the Israel Defense Forces as they did not fall into his area of operations."~~~~~

Shiloh -- We would have had no problem beating Iran in a war. And while I know less about Iran, I think it's possible that we would have had a much better time occupying Iran because there might not be such a tribal element there. While Sunni loyalty was a problem, the biggest problem was Saddam's extended patriarchal family waging a guerrilla war.

All that said, there is no question that the relative size of Iran's military made it a less likely military target after Sept 11. So did it's more remote location compared to the actual Middle East (Iran is a little more Asia than Middle East.)

But it would have made a fine target. Still does, though I highly doubt we ever invade. No need.

I suspect that I agree with much of the punditry on FOX politically, I also often see them as dishonest and contradictory, but, the MSNBC pundits seem insanely so to me, though I probably agree them on some of the personal social issues.

I watch both networks. I like getting different perspectives, and I find it interesting how differently they interpret the same stuff. Politically, I'm split down the middle. (Very conservative about some things, very liberal about others.) I find MSNBC to be far more grating, even when I'm in the choir to which they preach.

Barry Goldwater had to fight Nelson Rockefeller and the "eastern establishment." He won the fight. The year was 1964.

It's true Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election. But LBJ then managed to anger enough Americans that he would have lost his bid for a second term.

(Just as Truman knew to stay out of the race back in 1952).

Now, Sarah Palin is sending a TWO HOUR MOVIE; a feature film. To Iowa. She is NOT campaigning there. And, if people in Iowa are willing to sit through a two-hour documentary ... I think she stands a real good chance at sending the political world topsy-turvy.

On the one hand, the Internet changes politics. While on the other we view kloppen-hoppen, who lost her election to Prosser ... about to fling the whole thing to democrapic robed operatives.

Can forks and plastic reindeer be far behind?

Can we be saved by Sarah. Or will Trump make a mad dash for Independents, come June?

I have no idea! I make no predictions. But people across America are awake, now. And, what have the democraps got? TV ads depicting grandma in a wheelchair; being shoved off a cliff. Is this the new Daisy ad?

Seven, attacking Iran would be total lunacy unless they presented a direct legitimate threat to America.

hmm, sound familiar.

Although Iran is drastically different than Iraq ie many Iranians are pro America, especially the younger population. A carry over from when the U.S. was kowtowing to the Shah and America had a greater influence in every day Iranian life. (((If))) Iran would ever truly hold free elections, they would probably get rid of their dictatorship, preferring a pro-western democracy.

The internet age has had a big effect on Iran as many are highly educated. One of the reasons the Berlin Wall fell was 24/7 cable news, kinda what happened in Egypt recently as the more people are educated and have a choice, they prefer freedom.

The truth is out there ...

Someone mentioned at another political forum 6/7 years ago that Iran had a (3) million standing army they can form into action at any time, but I think that's a tad exaggerated.

"Here is the WSJ (which is a popular paper, so it is probably full of lies, according to bag)"

It doesn't matter much because although it is the most popular of it's genre, it is in fact not popular in absolute terms. 2 millon copies produced for 130 million voters. If it never ever lied, it would wouldn't change a thing.

"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined' as General MacArthur so delicately put it." ~ Robert Gates

Shiloh -- Who are you arguing with? You do realize that the president you so virulently support just invaded Libya, right? You do realize that Libya is in Africa but generally considered part of the Middle East, right?

Iran supposedly had/has a (1) million standing army, but I think that is also exaggerated.

It wouldn't matter if it wasn't.

They've got no air or sea power worth speaking of. This means that we have the capacity to destroy their entire infrastructure and cripple their economy any time we want without them having any way of fighting back.

The whole "it is crazy to get involved in a land war in the Middle East" thing is a bit silly when you consider that we kicked the ass of Iraq's half-million-man army twice and lost a total of around 500 men doing it.

Our casualties have occurred almost entirely during the prolonged period of nation-building, where we help our former enemies rebuild their country and transition to democracy. But we only do that because we're good people -- not because it is a necessary part of the war.

"SEAL Team Six performed a covert, military special-op, not an invasion."

We've had long term strategic operations in Pakistan, so you lose the argument even if you try that.

However, this action was obviously legal, as it was a strike at the leader of a force at war with us, and Pakistan's sovereignty can't apply to the point where they harbor such a man, or their corrupt government is not able to stop protecting him.

So it's more a no harm no foul issue.

However, why not just own up? We're seriously invested in warfare in Pakistan.

A "special-op" is not an invasion. It's where soldiers invade a country quickly and kill people and break things and leave, without telling anyone in the country that they invaded (other than those who saw them or who they killed).

Got it, tool. And I mean tool in the dictionary sense of the word. But whatever gets your lame, useful ass through the week.

The fact that Frum would "worry" that someone was a Barry Goldwater is telling. It shows where his priorities lie. Barry Goldwater lost an election. However, he is recognized as one of most principled politicians who have been in office in generations. His views on the issues have proven far more prescient than the establishment he challenged. And as much as it was a loss, the political infrastructure of modern conservatism traces to Goldwater's 1964 run. It's not uncommon to hear people from either side of the political aisle try to compare themselves to Mr. Goldwater. Not so much Nelson Rockefeller.

Keep in mind that the left is using these false distinctions to allow the President to avoid obeying the War Powers Act. We aren't at war with Libya, but rather there is just kinetic action going on. We aren't in charge there, NATO is, which just coincidentally is headed by one of our flag officers.

I though remain a bit more sanguine about an invasion of Iran. The Bush years were a bit strange - we had a lot of support in Iran, but if we had actually invaded there, it was likely that we would have ended up with a mortal enemy. A lot of them like us because they don't like their government, and their government doesn't like us.

When Abraham started his journey near present day Basra, what is now Iraq was a series of city states. Not much changed for the next almost 4,000 years, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, with some of those city states expanding, and then later contracting. And, yes, this extended throughout the "Fertile Crescent".

Meanwhile, just to the east, a more Aryan people coalesced into a nation state not that much later. After Egypt and China, one of the earlier nation states. They fought the Greeks, were conquered by Alexander, but were the one nation and people that were able to permanently stop the Roman advance (while what is now Iraq fell to one conquerer after another for those 4,000 years).

In other words, the Persians, who form a majority in Iran have been a people and nation for thousands of years, the Iraqis have been tribal (mostly) Arabs during that time. And, that is why invading Iran would be so much more dangerous than invading Iraq, where the various factions could, and long have been, played off against each other.

That said, 7 is right. The absolute best way to get Iran to change its government is doing exactly what we did - by taking out Saddam Hussein and installing a reasonably friendly, relatively democratic government just to the west of them.

One big reason for this is religion. The thing that the two share, besides most of their names, a long border, and a lot of history, is religion. Between the two of them, they form the center, historically and geographically, of Shi'a Islam. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, tried to separate the Shi'a in his country from those in Iran. As a result, and starting many decades ago, two different religious traditions grew up on either side of the border. On the Iranian side, the religious leaders espoused clerical leadership of the country. On the Iraqi side, just the opposite, separation of mosque and state.

Then, when we invaded Iraq, the two traditions or factions started to intermingle again. The Shi'a could now cross the border to visit the shrines and clergy on either side, and the Iraqi version quickly became the more popular, likely I think, due to the excesses of the clergy ruling in Iran.

So, it is more than just the democracy in Iraq that threatens the rules in Iran. More importantly, probably, is that the religious tradition or faction of Grand Ayatollah Sistani (www.sistani.org) mortally threatens the theological justification for and legitimacy of the clerical rulership in Iran, and his adherents can cross into Iran, and his followers back into Iraq.

Who cares? The thing is the Democrats still have not come up with anything that is even remotely like an alternative...and they are still stuck with Obamacare, which the seniors hate as much as they hate the Ryan plan. At least the Ryan plant takes place in the future, Obamacare is cutting their benefits right now.

I don't know what to think about the special election...yes the Republican should have won it...but no the Democrat did not get a majority. It was one of those third party races and they can be tricky.

The Republicans need to do a better job of explaining the Ryan plan and the ones who do not support it, like Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe...need to come up with their own ideas.

I don't think that is true. No one much likes Frum, including the socalled elites. He and Bush did not get along and that explains why he was fired...and he does not get along with the Krauthammers or the Bill Kristols either.

Once again verifying Thucydides' notion that evidence of a civilization veering on collapse includes when words lose their meaning.

You got a page cite for that?

LOL.

Just kidding. Still can't believe I read that whole book, and all of the Appendi in the back. I read [part of] it on a plane on the way to vacation and the guy next to me kept looking at it and shaking his head in disbelief.

David Who? But, more importantly than that, I wonder why commenters here feel that it is OK to use such foul language to express their views. I doubt they would use such language in the presence of their mothers or grandmothers.

The power of persuasion doesn't include the use of foul language, it depends on cogent and relevant argument.

Poor Frum. He was actually respected at one time. Now he's like a homeless schizophrenic who doesn't take his meds. He just sits on the sidewalk and growls at the passing parade -- which goes on its way and pays him no mind.

Ken, I was 16 in 64. I also worked for Goldwater. I wore a Styrofoam straw hat and handed out Goldwater bumper stickers at a shopping center. After the election, we wore pins that said 27 million, meaning that 27 million people, who voted for Goldwater, can't be all wrong. I understand Hilliary was a Goldwater Girl.